A G E N D A
GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
Meetings are broadcast live on Glendale TV, viewable on Spectrum Cable, channel 6, and AT&T Uverse, channel 99. Meetings are also streamed live in high definition (HD) on the City webpage, glendaleca.gov/live, on YouTube.com/myglendale, and on Apple TV, Roku, Amazon Fire, iOS and Android devices usinga free app called Cablecast and choosing "Glendale TV" from the menu.
Meetings are also archived on the City Website for viewing anytime at glendaleca.gov/agendas.
Call (818) 548-4013 for program schedules. For public comments and questions during the meeting, call (818) 937-8100. Public comments ona specific agenda item will be taken when that agenda item is discussed. If you have any question about matters on the agenda, or requests for assistance, please contact the City Clerk at (818) 548-2090 during regular business hours.
PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, auxiliary hearing aids, sign language translation, and Braille transcripts are available upon request. Assisted listening devices are available same-day upon request. The City Clerk’ office should be notified 72 hours (three business days) or as soon as practicable for requests regarding sign language translation and Braille transcription services. All documents related to open session items on this agenda that are received less than 72 hours prior to this meeting, and are public records, will be available for review in the Office of the City Clerk, 613 E. Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.
Translation services are provided for meetings through the use of bilingual staff for speakers who wish to utilize the service as available. Speakers should state their request by contacting the City Clerk’s office at (818) 548-2090, at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting or as soon as practicable. Please specify the language for which you require translation. The exclusive use of City provided interpreters is not required and persons are welcome to use their own interpreter or speak in their native language.
FEBRUARY 4, 2025
ROLL CALL
1. CLOSED SESSION – 1:00 PM (To Commence at 3:00 PM)
a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation: Najarian v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. 24STCP02101; Claim of Najarian, No. 25-0009 1 TYPED 1/30/2025 8:01:14 PM
02 04 25
CC
b. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation: Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9:
One potential case
c. Conference with Real Property Negotiators: City-designated negotiators: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Michael J. Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, Bradley Calvert, Onnig Bulanikian and Mark Berry. Property Location No. 2: 1000 S. Central Avenue.
Negotiating Parties, Aria Investments, LLC. Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms of payment for the acquisition of property d. Conference with Real Property Negotiators. 135-190 West Glenoaks Blvd. (APNs:
5644-013-905, 907, 914, 915, 917, 919, 921, 923, 924, 929, 930, 934, 935, and 936) and the landscaped public right-of-way of approximately 18,878 square feet located between Glenoaks Boulevard and the Verdugo Wash between Brand Boulevard and Central Avenue, all commonly referred to as the “Verdugo Wash/Glenoaks ROW Parcels.” Negotiating parties: Kam Sang Company, Inc.. Agency negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Michael J.
Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, Bradley Calvert, and Mark Berry. Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms for the sale of City-owned property e. Public Employment Performance Evaluation – City Manager and City Attorney f. Conference with Labor Negotiators. The City-designated negotiator attending the closed session is: Mayor Elen Asatryan. The unrepresented employee positions are:
City Manager and City Attorney
2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:00 PM
Roll Call
a. Flag Salute: Mayor Elen Asatryan
b. Invocation: Dr. Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c. Report of the City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the February 4, 2025 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on January 30, 2025, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.
3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, February 11, 2025 b. Nominations for Appointment • Annet Arakelian, Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission (Seat 2 -Replacing Meek) (Brotman (A), Gharpetian (B), 1/28/2025) • Christopher Satoorian, Audit Committee (Seat 3 – Vacant) (Gharpetian (A)/Najarian (B), 1/28/2025)
• Henrik Nazarian, Planning Commission (Seat 3 – Replacing Shahbazian) (Gharpetian (A)/Najarian (B), 1/28/2025)
• Hrand Avanessian, Glendale Water and Power (Seat 5 – Vacant) (Najarian (A)/Gharpetian (B), 1/28/2025)
• Rafi Halajian, Design Review Board (Seat 3 – Replacing Tchaghayan) (Gharpetian (A)/Najarian (B), 1/28/2025)
• Zaven Hanessian, Building and Fire Board of Appeals (Seat 5 – Vacant) (Najarian (A)/Gharpetian (B), 1/28/2025)
2 TYPED 1/30/2025 8:01:14 PM
02 04 25
CC
4. CONSENT ITEMS (Including Minutes)
The following are Routine and May be Acted Upon by One Motion. Any Member of Council or the Audience Requesting Separate Consideration May do so by Making Such Request Before Motion is Proposed.
a. City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings of January 27 and January 28, 2025
b. City Attorney, re: Cancellation of February 25, 2025 Regular Meeting and Adding February 18, 2025 Regular Meeting to the Council Calendar for the 2024-25 Fiscal Year
1. Motion Modifying City Council Regular Meeting Schedule for the 2024-25 Fiscal Year c. Community Services and Parks, re: Appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Grants and Local Services grant funds for Mountain Oaks Open Space Acquisition
1. Resolution of Appropriation to appropriate the Legislatively Specified Grant from the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS) in the amount of $2,500,000 for Mountain Oaks Open Space Acquisition
5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes; 5-Speaker Limit) Per Mayor Policy, This Item Also Permits Speakers Wishing to Speak Under General Oral Communications, Subject to the Three Minute Time Limit. Discussion is Limited to Matters Not on the Agenda.
7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
8. ACTION ITEMS
9. HEARINGS
a. Community Development, re: Appeal of Director of Community Development’s Decision to require an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed demolition of a historic resource, the 37-unit Glendale Garden Homes apartment complex built in 1957 at 1303-1315 North Central Avenue (Environmental Information Form Case No.
PEIF-002598-2023)
1. Motion to sustain the Community Development Director’s decision to require an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed demolition of a historic resource
2. Motion to reverse the Community Development Director’s decision to require an Environmental Impact Report and determine that the existing buildings are not historic resources
10. REPORTS - INFORMATION
11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
12. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS
13. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Each Speaker is Allowed 5 minutes.
Council May Question or Respond to The Speaker But There Will be no Debate or Decision. 3 TYPED 1/30/2025 8:01:14 PM
02 04 25
CC
The City Manager May Refer the Matter to the Appropriate Department for Investigation and Report.
14. NEW BUSINESS
15. ADJOURNMENT
4 TYPED 1/30/2025 8:01:14 PM
02 04 25
CC
1 M I N U T E S
SPECIAL MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
JANUARY 27, 2025
The Special Public Meeting of the Glendale City Council convened in the City Chambers, in said City, at 1:07 p.m., on the above date, pursuant to a call for such meeting signed by the City Clerk of the City Council, and on file with the City Clerk, a copy of which is as follows:
January 23, 2025
Date
Written Notice of said meeting was given, which Notice consisted of a copy of the foregoing Call, and was served on each Member of the Council not joining in the Call, and upon the in said City not less than 24 hours before the time fixed in said Call for said meeting, as follows:
Upon Dan Brotman at 5:00 p.m. January 23, 2025 Glendale, CA Upon Vartan Gharpetian at 5:00 p.m. January 23, 2025 Glendale, CA Upon Ardy Kassakhian at 5:00 p.m. January 23, 2025 Glendale, CA Upon Ara Najarian at 5:00 p.m. January 23, 2025 Glendale, CA Upon Elen Asatryan at 5:00 p.m. January 23, 2025 Glendale, CA Mayor Asatryan called the meeting to order at 1:08 p.m.
ROLL CALL
- All Present
- Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Monday, January 27, 2025 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on January 23, 2025, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.
Motion to approve Councilmember Kassakhian’s attendance via teleconference due to a contagious illness that prevents him from participating in-person Moved: Brotman Seconded: Gharpetian
Motion approved unanimously.
A SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING of the City Council is hereby called to meet at 1:00 PM on Monday, January 27, 2025, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;
CLOSED SESSION
a. Public Employee Performance Evaluation – City Manager b. Public Employee Performance Evaluation – City Attorney City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is not anticipated. Council recessed to closed session at 1:12 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT by Consensus – 3:00 p.m.
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
1 M I N U T E S
SPECIAL MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
JANUARY 28, 2025
The Special Public Meeting of the Glendale City Council convened in the City Chambers, in said City, at 3:06 p.m., on the above date, pursuant to a call for such meeting signed by the City Clerk of the City Council, and on file with the City Clerk, a copy of which is as follows:
January 23, 2025
Date
Written Notice of said meeting was given, which Notice consisted of a copy of the foregoing Call, and was served on each Member of the Council not joining in the Call, and upon the in said City not less than 24 hours before the time fixed in said Call for said meeting, as follows:
Upon Dan Brotman at 5:00 p.m. January 23, 2025 Glendale, CA Upon Vartan Gharpetian at 5:00 p.m. January 23, 2025 Glendale, CA Upon Ardy Kassakhian at 5:00 p.m. January 23, 2025 Glendale, CA Upon Ara Najarian at 5:00 p.m. January 23, 2025 Glendale, CA Upon Elen Asatryan at 5:00 p.m. January 23, 2025 Glendale, CA Mayor Asatryan called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m.
ROLL CALL
- All Present
- Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, January 28, 2025, Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on January 23, 2025, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.
Motion to approve Councilmember Kassakhian’s attendance via teleconference due to a contagious illness that prevents him from participating in-person Moved: Gharpetian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows
A SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING of the City Council is hereby called to meet at 3:00 PM on Tuesday, January 28, 2025, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;
1. Community Development, re: Annual Alex Theatre Report – Calendar Year 2024 Presenting:
Tamar Sadd, Deputy Director of Community Development
4A
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Brotman, Gharpetian, Kassakhian, Najarian, Asatryan
None
None
None
2 Public Comment:
Miles Williams, Evnsong
Public Comment:
Mike Mohill
a. Motion Note and File Annual Alex Theatre Update
Moved: Gharpetian Seconded: Brotman
Motion approved unanimously.
2. Community Development, re: Montrose Shopping Park Business Improvement District Annual Work Plan (Budget) for Calendar Year 2025
Presenting:
Tony Chriss, Development Officer
Dale Dawson, MSPA
Staff Comment:
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Public Comment:
Mike Mohill
a. Motion to accept Montrose Shopping Park Association 2025 Budget and Work Plan Moved: Gharpetian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows
a.
3. Public Works, re: Single Source Procurement of an Electric Vehicle (EV) Patrol Unit for the Glendale Police Department
Staff Comments:
Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Daniel Hernandez, Director of Public Works
Sevada Hambarsumian, Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent Public Comments:
Mike Mohill
Alex Balekian
Fernando Roldan
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Brotman, Gharpetian, Kassakhian, Najarian, Asatryan
None
None
None
3 a. Resolution 25-09 Dispensing with Competitive Bidding and authorizing the Deputy Director of Finance/Purchasing to issue a Purchase Order for an upfitted Tesla Model Y Patrol vehicle from Unplugged Performance Inc.
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
b.
b. Resolution 25-10 of appropriation to appropriate $27,758 Moved: Brotman Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
c.
4. Public Works, re: Fleet Electrification Study Update Staff Comments:
Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Daniel Hernandez, Director of Public Works
Shea Eccleston, Public Works Administrator
John Takhtalian, Asst. City Manager
Presenting:
Leslie Eudy, CTE
Steve Clermont, CTE
Public Comment:
Fernando Roldan
a. Motion to Note and File the Report on the Update to the Fleet Electrification Study and Provide Direction to Staff
Moved: Kassakhian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows
d.
ADJOURNMENT – 5:27 p.m.
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Najarian
City Clerk of the City of Glendale Mayor of the City of Glendale Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Brotman, Kassakhian, Asatryan
Gharpetian
None
Najarian
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Brotman, Kassakhian, Asatryan
Gharpetian
None
Najarian
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Brotman, Kassakhian, Asatryan
Gharpetian
None
Najarian
4b
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Cancellation of February 25, 2025 Regular Meeting and Adding February 18, 2025 Regular Meeting to the Council Calendar for the 2024-25 Fiscal Year
1. Motion Modifying City Council Regular Meeting Schedule for the 2024-25 Fiscal Year
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for February 4, 2025 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 21, 2024, the Council adopted a motion establishing the City Council regular meeting dates for the 2024-25 fiscal year, which includes a cancelled meeting on February 18, 2025. The Mayor and City Manager recommend cancelling the February 25, 2025 regular meeting and adding February 18, 2025 back to the regular meeting schedule.
2 4b
COUNCIL PRIORITIES
N/A.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council cancel the February 25, 2025 regular meeting and add February 18, 2024 to the Council regular meeting calendar for FY 2024-25.
BACKGROUND
The City Council’s regular meetings are on Tuesday evenings at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The Council also holds special meetings from time-to-time as well as joint meetings with other City agencies, as necessary. For the past several years, Council has adopted a regular meeting schedule per fiscal year by cancelling specified regular meetings. The regular meeting schedule typically takes holidays and school calendars into consideration. It should be noted that the City Manager and staff strive to calendar Council items in a manner so that agendas are not overly light, nor overburdened in a manner that makes for excessively heavy agendas.
ANALYSIS
On May 21, 2024, the Council adopted a motion establishing the City Council regular meeting dates for the 2024-25 fiscal year, which includes a cancelled meeting on February 18, 2025. The Mayor and City Manager recommend cancelling the February 25, 2025 regular meeting and adding the February 18, 2025 regular meeting to the Council calendar.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is exempt from CEQA because there is no reasonable possibility that the proposed action will result in any significant environmental impact.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Not modify the proposed regular meeting schedule for fiscal year 2024-25.
Alternative 2: Any other alternative not proposed by staff. 3 4b
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:
Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
N/A.
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________________ that the City Council hereby modifies its regular meeting schedule for the 2024-25 fiscal year to include every Tuesday at 6 p.m., except on those dates set forth below (“Excepted Dates”):
2024
July 2
July 23
August 6
September 24
October 15
October 29
November 26
December 24
December 31
2025
January 21
February 25
March 25
April 8
April 22
May 27
June 17
The regular meetings on the Excepted Dates are hereby cancelled.
Vote as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
{{section.number}}{{item.number}}
25-87376
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Grants and Local Services grant funds for Mountain Oaks Open Space Acquisition.
1. Resolution of Appropriation to appropriate the Legislatively Specified Grant from the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS) in the amount of $2,500,000 for Mountain Oaks Open Space Acquisition.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for February 4, 2025 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS) awarded the City of Glendale Legislatively Specified Grant funds in the amount $2,500,000 for “Mountain Oaks Open Space Acquisition” from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2026 as approved in the 2022-2023 State Budget.
On December 19, 2023, City Council approved a Resolution authorizing filing of a grant application for Mountain Oaks Open Space Acquisition through California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS) and accepting the grant funds in the amount of $2,500,000; and authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to conduct all negotiations, execute all agreements, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funding. The City is working with Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority to purchase approximately 33 acres of open space in the Verdugo Mountains comprised of 100 assessor parcel numbers in the City of Glendale Verdugo Mountains to preserve as open space. The City expected OGALS to advance the grant funds to MRCA escrow account to help pay for the purchase, but OGALS recently notified the City that grant funds need to be issued to the City and can’t be advanced to MRCA. Thus, staff is requesting to appropriate the $2.5 million to advance the funds to MRCA to complete the purchase and the City will be reimbursed from CA State Parks in the same amount.
{{section.number}}{{item.number}} 2
25-87376
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize appropriating $2,500,000 from the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS) for the “Mountain Oaks Open Space Acquisition” project.
ANALYSIS
The California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS) awarded the City of Glendale Legislatively Specified Grant funds as approved in the 2022-2023 State Budget in the amount of $2,500,000 for Mountain Oaks Open Space Acquisition from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2026. As part of the grant requirements on December 19, 2023 City Council approved a Resolution authorizing filing an application for this project to secure the grant funding.
The City is working with Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) to purchase approximately 33 acres of open space in the Verdugo Mountains comprised of 100 assessor parcel numbers in the City of Glendale Verdugo Mountains to preserve as open space. MRCA will purchase and maintain the property as open space. The purchase price is $6.1 million. The City will contribute $2.5 million through the grant awarded to the City and MRCA will pay for the remaining purchase price through grant funds secured by MRCA through U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in the amount of $1.1 Million and Los Angeles County Proposition A in the amount of $2.5 million. The City will advance the funds to MRCA’s escrow account and submit for grant reimbursement to OGALS. The City will sign an MOU with MRCA for the purchase and maintenance of the property as open space.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The community will benefit from additional open space available in the City of Glendale
FISCAL IMPACT
The California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Grants and Local Services awarded the City of Glendale grant funds in the amount of $2,500,000 for the Mountain Oaks Open Space Acquisition project, which was not included as a part of the FY 2024-25 budget. Therefore, staff is requesting for an appropriation of $2,500,000 from grant revenue.
Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$2,500,000 GL: 32610-4090-
CSP-0020-P0000
PL: CSP01333AG
GL: 43112-4090-
CSP-0020-P0000
PL: CSP01333AG
CIP
Reimbursement
Fund
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
{{section.number}}{{item.number}} 3
25-87376
The acquisition is exempt from CEQA under 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15313.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Do not authorize appropriation of the $2,500,000 for Mountain Oaks Open Space Acquisition, which would mean additional open space would not be preserved in Glendale and risk losing the grant funds.
Alternative 2: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services & Parks Prepared by:
Tereza Aleksanian, Assistant Director of Community Services & Parks Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
N/A
1 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Hearing: Appeal of Director of Community Development’s Decision to require an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed demolition of a historic resource, the 37- unit Glendale Garden Homes apartment complex built in 1957 at 1303-1315 North Central Avenue (Environmental Information Form Case No. PEIF-002598-2023).
1. Motion to sustain the Community Development Director’s decision to require an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed demolition of a historic resource.
2. Motion to reverse the Community Development Director’s decision to require an Environmental Impact Report and determine that the existing buildings are not historic resources.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for February 4, 2025 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This hearing is an appeal of a decision made on October 28, 2024, by the Director of Community Development on behalf of the Director (“Director”) that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required in conjunction with the proposed demolition of a historic resource, the 37-unit Glendale Garden Homes apartment complex built in 1957 at 1303- 1315 North Central Avenue (“Glendale Garden Homes”). The proposed demolition is in conjunction with a proposed 149-unit density bonus project (the “Project”).
Based on review by staff of materials submitted by the development team, an historic assessment prepared by qualified City staff, City records and all evidence submitted with the Project, the Director determined that the proposed Project would have a significant effect on the environment due to the demolition of a historic resource as described above. Therefore, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) the Director required the preparation of an EIR for the proposed Project.
The applicant is appealing the Director’s determination that an EIR is required for the proposed demolition of the Glendale Garden Homes apartment complex, which Staff has determined is a historic resource. The Project applicant, here the Appellant, alleges the City’s environmental determination was not timely per state law and that the determination relies on flawed analysis and incorrect conclusions. As detailed in this report, the facts show that the applicant delayed submission of required environmental documentation; and that the City has timely reviewed and made an environmental determination, which is the subject of this appeal. Further, this report establishes that the applicant’s arguments in support of their contention that the building is not a historic resource are not factually sound.
Since any appeal to City Council is de novo, the Council may independently consider any new or additional evidence submitted as part of the hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review the appeal and affirm the Director’s determination that an EIR is required for the demolition of the 37-unit Glendale Garden Homes apartment complex built in 1957 at 1303-1315 North Central Avenue, which staff has determined is a historic resource.
BACKGROUND
General Information
Appellant: David Brody
Applicant: David Brody
Owner: Central BWB, LLC (Greg Brody)
Requested Action: Reverse the Director’s decision that the proposed Project will demolish a historic resource thus requiring the preparation of an EIR.
General Plan: High Density
Zone: R-1250 (High Density Residential)
Description of Existing Properties and Uses: The Project site is an approximately 86,025 SF, irregularly shaped, double-fronting lot that fronts North Central Avenue for a length of 286 feet, and Viola Avenue for 75 feet at the end of the cul-de-sac. The site is developed with a 37-unit apartment complex consisting of three, two-story apartment buildings and associated parking garages, constructed in 1957.
Neighboring Zones and Uses:
Direction Zone Stories
North R-1250 Two stories
East R-1250 One to three stories
South R-1250 One to three stories
Northwest R1-I One story
Southwest R-1250 One story
See Exhibits 1 and 2 for location map and photos.
Previous Permits for the Site:
February 20, 1957 – Building permit #53944 issued for cabana, carport, dressing rooms February 20, 1957 – Building permit #53945 issued for 13 rental units (1303 North Central, apartments A-M)
February 20, 1957 – Building permit #53946 issued for 12 rental units (1311 North Central, apartments A-L)
February 20, 1957 – Building permit #53947 issued for 12 rental units (1315 North Central, apartments A-L)
August 16, 1957 – Building permit #55243 for a swimming pool Project History:
2003 Proposal:
November 3, 2003 – Applicant (Greg Brody) submitted a “Design Review Board (DRB) Preliminary/Conceptual Review” application (Case Number 2-3421-P) and Environmental information Form application (Case No. 2003-33) to demolish the existing 37-unit apartment complex with 91 mature trees, and build a 3-story, 86-unit apartment building over a two-level parking garage.
May 6, 2004 – DRB Preliminary Review public hearing held for DRB Case Number 2- 3421-P and Environmental Case No 2003-33. DRB recommended Return for Redesign with comments to provide a historic analysis of the existing site and buildings with the future environmental Initial Study, to retain existing landscaping, and to redesign the project to be compatible with the neighborhood in style, size, and sensitivity to existing buildings on the site.
August 3, 2004 – City Council meeting, Oral Communications. Eight speakers spoke about “Save Glendale Garden Homes” and presented their position that the site should be considered a historic resource. The Glendale Historic Society submitted a letter to Council for this meeting supporting the historic preservation initiative of the residents of the Glendale Garden Homes. Councilmember Gomez requested staff submit a report on the status of the application and what discretion, if any, Council has over these approvals.
September 7, 2004 – City Council meeting and discussion regarding options for addressing the project. Council suggested options to developer such as affordable housing, co-op housing, condominium conversion, etc. Developer (Gregory Brody) stated that the project was being redesigned to address DRB comments (from May 6, 2004 DRB meeting) and confirmed other economic options are being considered.
Several comments from councilmember Quintero and public (including the Glendale Historical Society) regarding the site being historic resource. Staff advised that status as a historic resource would be addressed with the environmental review. Council discussed whether it was appropriate/desired to pursue an urgency interim ordinance to create transition zones (between high-density multi-family located adjacent to lowdensity single-family). The City Council decided not to introduce an urgency interim ordinance, but direct staff to shift the focus from existing and ongoing analysis being conducted of multi-family zoning in various neighborhoods, including transitional zoning, to focus on a transitional zoning piece which affected this and other similar neighborhoods.
September 27, 2004 – Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) discussion regarding the project. Since no active entitlement was being reviewed, HPC discussion was limited to taking public comments until a formal public hearing for the environmental review would be conducted at a later date.
Sep 27, 2005 – City Council hearing regarding rezoning 17 areas to create transition multi-family zoning (when located next to single-family). Subject site included in Area 14 and proposed to be rezoned from R-1250 to R-2250 (current density build-out). 10 of the 17 areas were approved for rezoning, but Area 14 did not gain enough Council votes for support. Council discussion of rezoning Area 14 included concerns of creating non-conforming properties and using zoning to solve a historic preservation issue. The Council held a discussion about the historic status of the building, including the status being undetermined since the historic assessment was still being reviewed, but that community members and the Glendale Historical Society believed it was historic. The City Attorney mentioned if the zoning did not change, the issue would come back on historic assessment review. Then Mayor Manoukian and two other council members (Weaver and Quintero) indicated they wanted to see the buildings maintained.
January 11, 2006 – Letter from City to applicant stating the environmental initial study cannot continue to be processed without a new design review application for the revised project. Letter acknowledged the City understood the applicant did not submit a new design review application because the Council was deciding whether to downzone the property; however, it appeared the Council addressed the issue by voting not to rezone.
February 20, 2007 – Letter from City to applicant acknowledging applicant’s statement it had no intention to proceed with the project at that time, and therefore the environmental review application was rejected by staff due to inactivity.
Recent Proposals:
115-Unit Project
July 17, 2020 – Preliminary project plans (pre-Application review) for 115-unit density bonus project (including 13 affordable units) were submitted by applicant (Rodney Khan, Gregory Brody) to City for review. City response letter dated 8/14/20 states submission of an Environmental Information Form (“EIF”) is required once preapplication review is completed. EIF forms are required when a project is not CEQAexempt, per the City’s adopted CEQA Guidelines.
September 3, 2020 – Resubmittal of pre-application review. City response letter dated 10/29/20 states the EIF will be required once pre-application review is completed. 131-Unit Project
April 5, 2022 – DRB Preliminary Review application submitted for 131-unit density bonus project (with 14 affordable units). City incompleteness letter dated 6/28/22 states EIF submission will be required upon final DRB submittal (DRB Preliminary Review involves no decision by the hearing body, so no environmental review is conducted as part of the preliminary review).
February 2, 2023 - DRB Preliminary Review application re-submitted. Several follow-up emails between City staff and applicant to resolve outstanding plan comments.
February 6, 2023 – SB 330 Preliminary Application submitted for 131-unit density bonus project (with 14 affordable units). SB 330 is a state law that vests current zoning and design standards for a project upon submittal of a Preliminary Application and is separate from the requirements of other discretionary applications. The required submittal items for the SB 330 application were submitted, so the preliminary application was deemed complete. Vesting under the Preliminary Application can be lost if the applicant does not submit a complete “Project Application” within 180 days of the Preliminary Application. No affirmative determination regarding completeness (e.g., a completeness letter) is required per state law (Gov Code Section 65941.1(e)(3)) and none was issued. The SB 330 Preliminary Application vesting expired on August 4, 2023, because the applicant did not submit a Project Application.
July 13, 2023 – DRB Preliminary Review hearing. Report included explanation that no environmental determination was being made at the time since no decision was being made, and that environmental review would be conducted prior to any future discretionary decision.
September 15, 2023 – Density Bonus Review application submitted for 131-unit density bonus project (with 14 affordable units). City incompleteness letter dated 9/28/23 stated EIF submission was required.
December 6, 2023 – EIF submitted for 131-unit density bonus project (with 14 affordable units). Fees invoiced within 2 days and fees not paid until 8/30/24 (nine months later).
149-Unit Project
March 14, 2024 – Developer submitted a new SB 330 Preliminary Application together with a Project Application (DRB application) for 149-unit density bonus project (with 14 very low income and 5 moderate income units). Developer paid the DRB fees on March 22, 2024. The SB 330 Preliminary Application and Project Application (e.g., DRB application) were deemed complete on April 21, 2024, thirty days later by operation of law. (Gov’t Code Section 65941.1(e)(3) and Section 65943).
April 24, 2024 – Although the SB 330 Application and Project Application were deemed complete under State Permit Streamlining Act, the City issued an incompleteness letter based on failure of applicant to submit the EIF and Density Bonus applications and processing fees; the prior Density Bonus application on file was for a prior iteration of the project. The EIF and Density Bonus applications are required to be processed prior to DRB Final Review. Specifically, GMC section 30.47.030.I.1, states:
"The [design] review authority is not required to review plans that are not in reasonable conformance with the provisions of this title unless applications for appropriate discretionary permits are pending. The director of community development is authorized to withhold plans from the review authority when such plans are in violation of the provisions of this title and the required redesign would have a substantial effect on the appearance of the project, or are otherwise not in substantial conformance with relevant adopted design guidelines."
The DRB cannot take discretionary action to approve a project until the California Environmental Quality Act review is completed. (Public Resources Code section 21080). The incompleteness letter also informed the applicant that the EIF fees were unpaid and EIF review could not commence until fees were paid.
May 24, 2024 – Developer’s legal counsel submitted a “notice” letter alleging that the Project is exempt from CEQA as a Class 32 In-Fill Development Project and that the City was required to make, and had failed to make, a CEQA determination within specified Government Code time frames. (Developer Counsel Letter Attached as Exhibit 3 “Developer Notice Letter”).
June 18, 2024 – The City responded to the Developer Notice Letter disputing its timing and advising Developer that the final CEQA determination would be completed following Developer’s payment of the fees for processing the EIF Developer submitted on December 6, 2023. The letter informed Developer’s legal counsel that the City would process the Developer’s design review application following submission of an updated density bonus application reflecting the revised 149-unit project. (City response letter attached as Exhibit 4).
August 27, 2024 – Following the exchange of the above-referenced letters, the City and applicant negotiated a Tolling Agreement to extend the time limit for filing a civil or criminal claim, which stipulated, among other things, that (1) the City had until December 17, 2024, per state statutory time frames, to make a CEQA determination (which it did on October 28, 2024 – see below)(the City’s CEQA determination is the subject of this appeal); and (2) the Applicant agreed to pay the EIF processing fees; (3) the Applicant agreed to submit an updated Density Bonus application; and (4) the Applicant agreed to pay fees for the updated Density Bonus project (149 units instead of 131 units). These updated submissions would thereafter allow the Design Review application to be considered by the DRB. (Tolling Agreement attached as Exhibit 5).
August 30, 2024 – Developer paid the EIF fees and submitted an updated Density Bonus Review application for the 149-unit density bonus project (with 14 very low income and 5 moderate income units).
September 18, 2024 – Developer resubmitted the EIF application for the current 149- unit density bonus project with 14 very low income and 5 moderate income units.
October 1, 2024 - City requested applicant address outstanding plan comments (clarifications) in order for the City to finalize Density Bonus Review incentive/waiver requests.
October 28, 2024 – City issued the Director’s determination letter that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required in conjunction with the proposed demolition of a historic resource (Exhibit 6) (“CEQA Determination Letter”), which determination was based on staff’s Historic Resource Assessment and Peer Review of prior Historic Resource Assessments submitted by the Developer (Exhibit 7) (“Glendale Report”).
November 7, 2024 – Developer filed an appeal of the CEQA Determination Letter. (Exhibit 8) (“Appeal”).
December 6, 2024 – Density Bonus Review application re-submitted.
December 20, 2024 - City requested applicant address outstanding plan comments in order to finalize Density Bonus Review incentive/waiver requests.
January 7, 2025 – Density Bonus Review application re-submitted.
ANALYSIS
Requested Action by the Appellant:
The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Director’s decision that the existing 37-unit Glendale Garden Homes apartment complex built in 1957 at 1303-1315 North Central Avenue is a historic resource, and that an EIR is therefore required to evaluate the impact of the proposed demolition of the buildings and construction of the proposed Project.
BASIS OF THE DIRECTOR’S DECISION:
Based on staff’s review of (1) all the materials, including several Historic Resources Assessments, submitted by the Developer team, (2) City staff’s Historic Assessment and Peer Review of Developer’s previously submitted historic assessments (“Glendale Report”) , (3) review of City records, and (4) review of all evidence submitted with the above referenced project, the Director determined that the proposed Project would have a significant effect on the environment due to the demolition of a historic resource.
Therefore, in accordance with CEQA the Director concluded that an EIR is required to assess the significant impact of the demolition of a historic resource for implementation of the proposed Project.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES
Appellant’s statements (Part 4. Statement of Error” – see Exhibit 8 “Appeal”) that forms the basis of the Appeal are listed below followed by Staff’s responses.
Part 4A (Violation of Specific Provision of Law)
The Appellant cites to sections of the California Government Code and Public Resources Code (“…1) Government Code Sec. 65913.10; 2) Government Code Sec. 65589.5; 3) Public Resources Code Sec. 21159.25; 4) Public Resources Code Sec. 21084.1; and 5) Government Code Sec. 65920 et seq.”), but does not provide a further statement or analysis of these sections.
The staff response below addresses each cited code section:
1) Government Code Section 65913.10 requires the City to determine whether the site of a proposed housing development project is a historic site at the time the application for the housing development project is deemed complete.
The applicant knew it was required to submit three entitlement applications for processing: the EIF, Density Bonus, and Design Review, in that order. On August 14, 2020, the City notified the applicant in writing (and again on four later occasions) that an EIF was required. The applicant submitted the Density Bonus application in September 2023 and was notified the EIF submittal was outstanding. The applicant did not submit the EIF until 11 months later, preventing the City from making a CEQA determination. That EIF application was not submitted until December 6, 2023 (over three years after being notified it was required) and the applicant did not pay the fees until August 30, 2024, nearly nine months after application submittal. Meanwhile, the second application, (Design Review) was deemed complete. Regardless, none of the land use entitlements can be processed without CEQA being addressed.
Staff requires the EIF in order to make the environmental assessment where it is clear that the project would not qualify for a CEQA exemption. Staff and the applicant were aware of the potential historic status of the site as far back as 2003 when this same applicant proposed a housing development involving total demolition of the existing buildings at this site and commissioned preparation of a 2004 Historic Site Assessment, which determined the Glendale Garden Homes may qualify for the Glendale Register under Criterion 4 (the resource exemplifies one of the best remaining architectural type in the neighborhood, or contains outstanding or exemplary elements of attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship of a particular historic period.)(2004 EP Associates, HRA, page 18). At that time the City Council, Glendale Historical Society and the public expressed concern about the historic status of the buildings. The status of the existing buildings as a potential historic resource was known long before the current project was proposed.
Staff does not process Design Review applications until the EIF and corresponding Density Bonus Applications are submitted otherwise staff cannot accurate describe and analyze the “whole of the project” as required by CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21065). To that point, Government Code Section 65913.10 expressly recognizes CEQA’s precedence over the limitations in Government Code Section 65913.10. Government Code Section 65913.10 (c)(1), states that “[n]othing in this section supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the requirements of, or the standards of review pursuant to…the Public Resources Code.”
As part of the Tolling Agreement, the Developer agreed to update its Density Bonus Application, and to pay the fees for Density Bonus Application and the EIF; they have completed the payments and submitted the updated applications.
Additionally, Developer and City agreed that the Project Application submitted with the Preliminary Application as part of the applicant’s SB 330 application package, was deemed complete as a matter of law pursuant to the California Permit Streamlining Act, (Government Code § 65920, et seq.,) on April 21, 2024. 2) Government Code Sec. 65589.5 (Housing Accountability Act), in summary, was enacted to, among other things, impose a timeline on local government to approve housing applications that meet objective general plan and zoning standards, that do not cause a “specific, adverse” impact to health, and which meet CEQA standards. Here, the applicant has not set forth any specifics as to how the City has allegedly violated the Housing Accountability Act. 3) Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21159.25 (California Environmental Quality Act), sets forth a limited exemption from CEQA for certain qualified multifamily residential and mixed use projects. Section 21159.25(a) defines “residential or mixed-use housing projects” and subsection (b) sets forth all the conditions such residential or mixed use housing projects must meet to use the exemption. Subsection (c), describes the conditions which would except such a residential or mixed use housing projects from using the exemption, this includes subsection (c)(5), which states that a proposed residential or mixed use housing project cannot use the exemption if “[t]he project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.” Here, as noted above, the Director has determined that the Project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. Accordingly, the Project is disqualified from using the limited exemption from CEQA set forth in PRC section 21159.25.
4) Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 (California Environmental Quality Act), discusses the CEQA standards for evaluating historical resources. It states, among other things, that “[a] project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” This section establishes what are considered mandatory resources, presumptive resources and discretionary resources. Mandatory resources include “…a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources.
Presumptive historical resources are those that are included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (l) of Section 5020.1, or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision 5024.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant.” Discretionary resources are those that may not be listed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, nor included in the local register of historic resources, nor deemed significant pursuant to certain criteria, but in such cases a lead agency (here, the City) is not precluded from determining whether the resource may be an historical resource for purposes of this section.
Glendale’s October 2024 Historic Resource Assessment and Peer Review of Previous Studies (the “Glendale Report,” Exhibit 7) found the Glendale Garden Homes to be historically and architecturally significant and eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. This expert determination is based in part on two Glendale-specific documents, the South Glendale Historic Context and the South Glendale Historic Resources Survey, (see Exhibits 9 and 10, respectively). In addition, qualified City staff used comparative and contextual analyses of similar properties in Glendale to assess the Glendale Garden Homes in the context of Glendale, whereas the applicant’s environmental assessments (ESA and CH Reports) both fail to look at the project site in the context of Glendale’s historic development or to provide analysis of the Glendale Garden Homes’ relationship with other multi-family projects in Glendale. Instead, the applicant’s consultants rely heavily on the Los Angeles Conservancy’s 2012 “Garden Apartments of Los Angeles Historic Context Statement”, written, in part, as a tool to analyze the significance of garden apartment complexes in Los Angeles, with no study or analysis of any sites in Glendale.
The November 7, 2024, JMBM Letter in Support of Appeal (“JMBM Letter”) (Exhibit 8) elaborates on the Appellant’s contention that Glendale Garden Homes is not a historic resource and indicates a belief that the Glendale Report erred in finding it otherwise. The JMBM Letter identifies what it believes are three “critical errors”: (1) misapplication of garden apartment typology; (2) overstated finding of architectural integrity; and (3) insufficient justification for Glendale Register designation criteria. Each of these so-called “critical errors” are addressed as follows:
Misapplication of Garden Apartment Typology
All four Historic Resource Assessments for the project site identify it as a garden apartment complex. Given that three of these were commissioned by the Appellant, the documents’ shared view that the property development was informed by “Garden City” planning principles developed earlier in the 20th century indicates that it is appropriate to analyze the complex as a “garden apartment”. The JMBM letter alleges that the South Glendale Historic Resource Survey provides details about the typology that the Glendale Report did not use in its analysis. The JMBM letter quotes the “garden apartment” defining characteristics from the Los Angeles Report, which, as noted above, is not an appropriate document to support a detailed analysis of a building site located in Glendale. However, the South Glendale Historic Context does contain a list of character defining features for garden apartments in Glendale, with each represented at Glendale Garden Homes, as demonstrated in the Glendale Report:
Characteristics of garden apartments include the use of superblocks in development of the site, the segregation of automobile and pedestrian traffic, low to medium density and building coverage, the standardization of building types with a maximum of three stories in height, and an emphasis on landscaping and open space.
Overstated Finding of Architectural Integrity
The Glendale Report acknowledges that some aspects of the property, not involving the primary buildings, have changed over the years, including the addition of a security gate at the main entrance, the installation of inappropriately designed free-standing light poles along the courtyard walkways, and landscape changes. The Glendale Report provides a detailed assessment of the “seven aspects of integrity” identified by the National Park Service and used in determining Glendale Register eligibility. The JMBM Letter describes these changes as “extensive,” compromising the site’s integrity, and then incorrectly references the South Glendale Survey, which is, in staff’s professional opinion, an exaggeration. The more relevant reference document is the South Glendale Historic Context, which establishes integrity considerations for garden apartments and other postwar multifamily building types. It states:
A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.
The Glendale Garden Homes have not lost their historical integrity; all of the items listed above remain at Glendale Garden Homes. Few buildings are unchanged over time, including numerous examples that are listed in the Glendale Register despite not being in pristine, original condition. The changes noted in the JMBM Letter are superficial; as discussed in the Glendale Report the property retains its original site plan, design, and materials.
Insufficient Justification for Glendale Register Designation Criteria The JMBM Letter questions the Glendale Report’s application of Glendale Registration designation criteria 1 and 3 and then misrepresents what the South Glendale Historic Resource Survey (“Survey”) requires for a finding of eligibility.
The JMBM Letter states that the Survey “stresses that eligible properties must represent significant architectural achievement or association with important historical events or figures.” But that is not the complete criterion. The Survey includes the following language:
Eligible multi-family properties from the 1940s and the post-World War II era include architecturally significant properties, and distinctive courtyard apartments or garden apartment complexes with a high degree of historic integrity. For these properties, replacement of windows, alteration of window openings, and replacement wall cladding are not acceptable alterations. Examples with some minor alterations, or those that are not distinctive examples of their style or type were assigned 6L status codes. [emphasis added].
The Glendale Report carefully assesses the registration requirements developed in the South Glendale Context and Survey and found them suitable for analyzing the subject property located in West Glendale. In addition, the designation criteria established by the Glendale Municipal Code were also applied. Staff’s finding that the Glendale Garden Homes is a highly distinctive property, with few, if any, comparable sites in the city, is a fact. Further, its eligibility for listing in the Glendale Register is fully supported by the Glendale Report. The JMBM Letter’s dismissal of the Property as a “common postwar development” that does not “exhibit distinctive architectural characteristics or historic associations” has no factual support, or from the ESA and Chronicle Heritage reports it relies upon. 5) Government Code Sec. 65920 (Permit Streamlining Act), sets time limits within which government agencies are required to approve or deny development projects in relation to CEQA and Subdivision Map Act review to expedite the permit processing. The appellant cites generally to this section but provides no specifics as to how the City has allegedly violated this section.
Part 4B (Director exceeded its authority)
The Appellant indicated in the appeal application that the Director has exceeded its authority, but no explanation as to how the Director has allegedly exceeded its authority is provided.
Part 4C (Director failed to fulfill a mandatory duty)
The Appellant references, “See attached. The Director of Planning failed to comply with Government Code Sec. 65913.10; Actions in bad faith and in violation of the California Housing Accountability Act.” “Attached” refers to the above-referenced JMBM Letter in support of the appeal. It contends that the Director issued the CEQA determination untimely, and that the determination relies on flawed analysis and incorrect conclusions.
Staff response:
As described in Part 4A #1 above, the City did not fail to comply with Government Code Section 65913.10. The City has not demonstrated intent to deceive (“bad faith”); in fact, as detailed above, it was the Applicant who delayed submittal of and fee payment for the EIF application and updated Density Bonus Application, which delayed the City’s environmental review. Moreover, in the Tolling Agreement the Applicant agreed that the City had ninety (90) days from June 20, 2024, the date upon which timely written notice is deemed given pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(6)(D)(V)(ie), to make a lawful determination on the Developer’s Project Application. The Developer and City also agreed that the City had the right to exercise its authority pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(6)(D)(V)(ic) to extend the time period to make a lawful determination by not more than an additional 90 days (until December 17, 2024) if the extension is necessary to determine if there is substantial evidence in the record that the housing development project is eligible for the CEQA exemption sought by the Developer. Here, the Director issued the CEQA determination letter on October 28, 2024, well before the statutory deadline..
Part 4D (Director refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision) The Appellant references the JMBM Letter, and states “See attached. The Determination ignores expert evidence and substantial evidence in the record that determined the site does not contain any historic resource.” The JMBM Letter contends the Director issued the CEQA determination untimely, and that the determination relies on flawed analysis and incorrect conclusions.
Staff response:
See Staff Response to Part 4C above. The Director’s decision was based on a full review and understanding of the contents and analysis of the three historic resource assessments commissioned by the Developer (EP - Exhibit 11); ESA - Exhibit 12); and (Chronicle Heritage - Exhibit 8) (collectively the “Developer’s HRAs”). Staff’s expert peer review contained in the Glendale Report thoroughly and carefully identifies the factual inaccuracies and unsupported conclusions in the Developer HRAs; the Glendale Report concludes that the Developer HRA’s do not contain substantial evidence that overcome the evidence supporting the significance of the property as a historical resource. The fact that the Director reached a different conclusion than the Appellant’s team does not mean that Staff ignored or refused to consider Appellant’s evidence in rendering a decision.
Part 4E (The evidence before the Director was insufficient or inadequate to support its action)
The Appellant refers to the JMBM Letter, stating, “See attached. The Determination ignores expert evidence and substantial evidence in the record that determined the Site does not contain any historic resource.” The JMBM Letter contends that the Director issued the CEQA determination untimely, and that the determination relies on flawed analysis and incorrect conclusions.
Staff response:
The Glendale Report contains analysis based on documents that are relevant to analyzing historic resources in Glendale, such as the South Glendale Historic Context, South Glendale Historic Resource Survey, and the Glendale Municipal Code. It also reviews previously identified garden apartments in South Glendale and completes a desktop survey to identify garden apartment complexes in West and East Glendale.
This investigation together with additional research and a site visit serves as the factual basis (substantial evidence) for the Glendale Report. CEQA Guidelines Section 15384(a) defines Substantial Evidence. It states, “‘Substantial evidence’ as used in these guidelines means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.”
On the other hand, as noted herein above, the primary source document for the ESA and Chronicle Heritage Reports is not the Glendale Survey or South Glendale Historic Context, but rather the Los Angeles Report, which by its own admission contains analysis limited to the City of Los Angeles, and generally LA County; it contains no specific study of the City of Glendale. The Glendale Report concludes it was not appropriate for the Developer HRAs to determine the historic significance of the Glendale Garden Homes based primarily on a study of another jurisdiction’s development and property types.
The evidence in the Glendale Report the Director considered is well documented and its conclusion that the Glendale Garden Homes are a historic resource is based on studies of Glendale’s resources. As noted above, the Director did not ignore any evidence but considered all documents and based thereon determined that the site is a historic resource and that a proposal for demolition requires preparation of an EIR.
The ESA and Chronicle Heritage reports commissioned by the Appellant reach a different conclusion than the Glendale Report, but reaching a different conclusion does not give them greater weight, especially where the Developer HRA’s lack depth of analysis and thoroughness necessary to support their conclusions. According to the CEQA Guidelines, when it is unclear whether substantial evidence exists that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, and when experts disagree over the significance of an impact, the lead agency must treat the effect as significant and prepare an EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(g). This CEQA Guidelines provision applies after the lead agency has considered whether there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant impact, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(f). If, after evaluating the evidence under §15064(f), qualified experts disagree about the likelihood of an environmental impact or its magnitude, the agency must assume that a significant impact may occur and must prepare an EIR.
Part 4F (The appellant has new evidence of material facts not previously presented, which if considered should change the act, determination, or ruling) The Appellant contends it has new evidence of material facts not previously presented, which if considered should change the act, determination, or ruling. As of the preparation of this report, Appellant has not submitted any new evidence of material facts. In the event Appellant submits new evidence, staff reserves time to evaluate the credibility and veracity of any additional or new evidence submitted to the City Council for review as part of this Appeal. Such reservation includes, but is not limited to, a request for a brief recess during the hearing to review the new materials, or depending on the nature and extent of the new materials presented, staff may a request a continuance for purposes of completing an evaluation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, staff finds that the appeal is without merit for the reasons discussed herein above.
The appeal hearing is de novo, meaning that the City Council may evaluate the case anew and is not bound by any of the findings or determinations made by the Director.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
In addition to the City Council agenda being posted on the bulletin board in front of City Hall, a public notice was sent to all owners and occupants within 500 feet of the subject Project Site, a sign was posted on the Project Site, and a newspaper notice was published. Staff also shared the notice with the project interest list (community members who specifically requested to be contacted with any public noticing for the project).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City associated with the Council’s decision to sustain or reverse the Director’s decision to require an EIR for this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Development of the proposed project requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed demolition of a historic resource, the 37-unit Glendale Garden Homes apartment complex built in 1957.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report are attached in Exhibit 13, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Uphold the Director’s determination that an EIR is required for the project because the existing buildings are considered historical resources.
Alternative 2: Reverse the Director’s determination that an EIR is required for the project and determine that the existing buildings are not historical resources.
Alternative 3: Any other alternatives not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:
Cassandra Pruett, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:
Gillian van Muyden, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Erik Krause, Deputy Director of Community Development
Jay Platt, Principal Planner
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Site Photos
3. Developer Notice Letter
4. City Response Letter
5. Tolling Agreement
6. CEQA Determination Letter
7. Glendale Report
8. Appeal (and attachments including November 7, 2024 JMBM Letter in Support of Appeal, and Chronicle Heritage 2024 Peer Review Historic Assessment)
9. South Glendale Historic Context
10.South Glendale Historic Resource Survey
11.EP Associates’ 2004 Historic Assessment
12.ESA 2019 Historic Resources Assessment
13.Campaign Finance
1 MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________, seconded by Council Member ___________, that upon review and consideration of all materials and exhibits of current record relative to Environmental Information Form Case No. PEIF-002598- 2023 (“Environmental Information Form Case”) for the project site located at 1303- 1315 North Central Avenue, and after having conducted a public hearing on the appeal of said matter, pursuant to the Glendale Municipal Code (“GMC”), 1995, and receiving testimony, the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, based upon all of the evidence in the record, hereby SUSTAINS the Community Development Director’s decision to require an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed demolition of a historic resource, for all of the reasons outlined in the February 4, 2025 staff report from the Director of Community Development, including any attachments thereto and any other evidence presented at the hearing, including any additional Council comments at the hearing.
Vote as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________, seconded by Council Member ___________, that upon review and consideration of all materials and exhibits of current record relative to Environmental Information Form Case No. PEIF-002598-2023 (“Environmental Information Form Case”) for the project site located at 1303-1315 North Central Avenue, and after having conducted a public hearing on the appeal of said matter, pursuant to the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, and receiving testimony, the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, based upon all of the evidence in the record, hereby REVERSES the Community Development Director’s decision to require an Environmental Impact Report and determine that the existing buildings are not historic resources. The City Council hereby continues this matter until February 18, 2025, without further public notice, and directs the City Attorney to prepare written findings in support of reversing the Community Development Director’s decision to require an Environmental Impact Report, subject to the following condition:
1. David Brody (Applicant) and Central BWB, LLC (Owner), and their respective successors, owners by deed, deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, foreclosure or otherwise, and assigns, and/or any real party in interest with an interest in the Project Site named as a party in any suit (hereinafter collectively the “Developer”), agree to and shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and each of its agents, officers, council members, commissioners, attorneys, employees and representatives (the “Indemnitees”) from any claim, action or proceeding brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul any City land use or California Environmental Quality Act approval for, or related to, the Environmental Information Form Case and/or the Project. The Developer agrees to use legal counsel reasonable acceptable to the City. The foregoing shall include, without limitation, payment of all damages awarded against the Indemnitees, if any, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with such action or proceeding. In the event that a claim, action or proceeding referenced herein is brought, the City shall promptly notify the Developer of the existence of the claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action or proceeding. As used herein, “land use approval” shall refer to decisions of the City approving requests of applicants for planning permits, including, but not limited to, general plan amendments, annexations, zone changes, zoning ordinance text amendments, tentative maps, vesting tentative maps, tentative parcel maps, reversions to acreage, final maps, final modifications or amendments, time extensions, parcel map waivers, lot line adjustments, boundary line adjustments, certificates of compliance, conditional certificates of compliance, design review, development agreements, conditional use permits, conditional use permit modifications, conditional use permit extensions, variances, variance modifications, precise plan of design, specific plans, density bonus review/housing plan applications, sign permits, parking reduction permits, site plans, temporary use permits, any administrative or discretionary permit pertaining to a land use approval and/or any accompanying California Environmental Quality Act determination(s) pertaining to the type of approval referred to in this section, and any other similar approval.
Vote as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent: